BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Fairfield Connecticut custom homes building expert Fairfield Connecticut multi family housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut production housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut Medical building building expert Fairfield Connecticut retail construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut mid-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut parking structure building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominiums building expert Fairfield Connecticut institutional building building expert Fairfield Connecticut housing building expert Fairfield Connecticut casino resort building expert Fairfield Connecticut tract home building expert Fairfield Connecticut office building building expert Fairfield Connecticut hospital construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut landscaping construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut concrete tilt-up building expert Fairfield Connecticut townhome construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut condominium building expert Fairfield Connecticut structural steel construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut Subterranean parking building expert Fairfield Connecticut high-rise construction building expert Fairfield Connecticut
    Fairfield Connecticut construction expert witnessFairfield Connecticut construction defect expert witnessFairfield Connecticut consulting general contractorFairfield Connecticut structural concrete expertFairfield Connecticut expert witness concrete failureFairfield Connecticut contractor expert witnessFairfield Connecticut multi family design expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Connecticut Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fairfield Connecticut

    License required for electrical and plumbing trades. No state license for general contracting, however, must register with the State.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & Remo Assn of Fairfield Co
    Local # 0780
    433 Meadow St
    Fairfield, CT 06824

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Eastern Connecticut
    Local # 0740
    20 Hartford Rd Suite 18
    Salem, CT 06420

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Haven Co
    Local # 0720
    2189 Silas Deane Highway
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hartford Cty Inc
    Local # 0755
    2189 Silas Deane Hwy
    Rocky Hill, CT 06067

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of NW Connecticut
    Local # 0710
    110 Brook St
    Torrington, CT 06790

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Connecticut (State)
    Local # 0700
    3 Regency Dr Ste 204
    Bloomfield, CT 06002

    Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Fairfield Connecticut


    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    “It Just Didn’t Add Up!”

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention

    Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Bridges Need More Attention

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    The Johnstown Dam Failure, as Seen in the Pages of ENR in 1889

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn
    Corporate Profile

    FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fairfield, Connecticut Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fairfield's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Fairfield, Connecticut

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    April 13, 2017 —
    The consortium building the $3.2-billion Champlain Bridge in Montreal has sued Canada’s government for $93 million, claiming transportation officials gave it late notice of stricter load limits that could add to delay and make it liable for tens of millions of dollars in penalties, according to Canadian press reports and a stock analyst’s comments. A spokeswoman for the team’s lead firm, engineer-contractor SNC-Lavalin, confirms the March 28 filing in Quebec Superior Court but declined further comment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    March 22, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process

    February 06, 2019 —
    Flooring, tiling, or painting on a concrete surface that is insufficiently dry can end up being a disaster. An experimental project recently used IoT sensors and AI to determine when it is safe to start finishing concrete surfaces. Haste and Imperfect Conditions Lead to Failure To successfully first cure and then dry concrete requires specific conditions. You need to maintain a temperature higher than 10°C and a relative humidity of greater than 80 percent in the concrete. Once the concrete is hardened, you have to make sure that it is dry enough for finishing. Typically, the relative humidity should not exceed 82 percent. Some flooring materials require a humidity of less than 75 percent for successful application. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    May 20, 2015 —
    The Hawaii legislature passed a bill in its recently concluded session to protect homeowners and businesses affected by lava flows from losing coverage. The Puna district on the Big Island was severely impacted by the Pu`u O`o lava flow as it crept closer to homes, businesses, schools and populated areas. Problems were created by the imposition of a moratorium on the sale of new policies in certain areas of the Puna district. SB 589 grants relief to homeowners who have had continuous insurance in lava zone areas that are declared to be in a state of emergency. The bill (1) allows the homeowners to have their policies renewed, (2) permits continued coverage for homeowners who wish to sell their homes, (3) grants coverage for new buyers of an insured property, and (4) allows homeowners who have not previously had insurance to purchase coverage from the Hawaii Property Insurance Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of a lower court, allowing a construction defect case to go through. In Greer v. Town Construction Company, the Greers hired Town Construction to build a home in Baton Rouge. The business relationship went sour, with disputes over “costs, change orders, workmanship, and timeliness issues.”

    Town Construction filed an arbitration claim for the unpaid contract balance. In the counterclaim, the Greers made claims of mold and mildew problems, and wall cracks that they attributed to a “structural defect in the foundation.” In arbitration, Town Construction was awarded the full contract balance plus extra costs and interest, while the Greers were awarded for their structural claims.

    Three years later, the Greers found additional cracks and filed a suit against Town Construction. Town Construction argued that the Greer’s lawsuit should be dismissed, as the claims had already been through the arbitration process. The district court agreed with Town Construction and dismissed the suit.

    The appeals court noted that the Greers would have no ground for a suit if the arbitration was a “valid and final judgment,” and went on to note that there was no evidence in the trial record that the arbitration met this qualification. The court noted that although it was clear that both parties had agreed to the decisions of the arbiter, under Louisiana law, arbitration is not final until it has been “rendered by a court with jurisdiction over subject mater and over parties.”

    The court remanded the case to the lower court, noting that “the district court is obligated to first determine whether a valid arbitration award is in existence and had been confirmed before considering the merits of the exception. The court noted that their decision “should not be read to express any opinion as to the merits of the claims or as to the propriety of damages sought in the Greer’s lawsuit.”

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    December 04, 2023 —
    The Biden administration’s $55.9-billion supplemental funding request to Congress for disaster response and other issues includes $310 million for a project to repair and expand the ailing South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego, Calif. The plant is part of a repeatedly overwhelmed wastewater treatment system on the U.S.-Mexico border that has allowed untreated sewage flows to foul area beaches. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of